Guest neesy111 Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Think a lot of this could have been solved by dropping the defence and central midfielders a little deeper. Would have liked to have seen us keep the 4-3-3, put Best up top and replace Ameobi with Ferguson as he could then help out Santon since he looked to be struggling after giving away the penalty. The defence moved up because we were weaker in midfield and they tried to fill the gap. my reading was the defence moved up a tad because johnson came on and dropped a bit deeper, no doubt many on here want us to stand 30yds out and wait for them to come at us. Moving up when a pacey player comes on is suicidal. We were trying to catch them offside 5 yards in our own half. standing off them and giving them the ball inspace is suicidal also, what do you suggest ? i don't think the plan was to push up but do as most temas do and follow the opposition, if the push up you sit deeper, if they drop in you push up. You don't push up as high was what we did. They did nothing in-front of us as a team. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Think a lot of this could have been solved by dropping the defence and central midfielders a little deeper. Would have liked to have seen us keep the 4-3-3, put Best up top and replace Ameobi with Ferguson as he could then help out Santon since he looked to be struggling after giving away the penalty. The defence moved up because we were weaker in midfield and they tried to fill the gap. my reading was the defence moved up a tad because johnson came on and dropped a bit deeper, no doubt many on here want us to stand 30yds out and wait for them to come at us. Moving up when a pacey player comes on is suicidal. We were trying to catch them offside 5 yards in our own half. standing off them and giving them the ball inspace is suicidal also, what do you suggest ? i don't think the plan was to push up but do as most temas do and follow the opposition, if the push up you sit deeper, if they drop in you push up. Not as suicidal as moving up and then only to be beaten over the top. The crucial distinction is that if you stay back and give the strikers space, they still need to beat our defenders or have long range pops. Move up and get beaten by the ball over the top and the striker is already through with just the keeper to beat. Can't believe that I'm even arguing this, it's so f***ing obvious and you are usually post sensible stuff. see above Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tachikoma Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Got it badly wrong today. Fuck knows what possessed him to start Shola. The alternatives were... Loven and possibly Obertan? S'pose we could have played Vuckic. Pardew did say he was going to give Shola an extended run in the team. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpal78 Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Think a lot of this could have been solved by dropping the defence and central midfielders a little deeper. Would have liked to have seen us keep the 4-3-3, put Best up top and replace Ameobi with Ferguson as he could then help out Santon since he looked to be struggling after giving away the penalty. The defence moved up because we were weaker in midfield and they tried to fill the gap. my reading was the defence moved up a tad because johnson came on and dropped a bit deeper, no doubt many on here want us to stand 30yds out and wait for them to come at us. And you want the defence to move up and to be caught with ball over the top over and over again....brilliantly Pardewisque. Basic rule of playing a high line, you need quick defenders who can chase the ball over the top. We should never play a high line coz none of our defenders are fast enough for this, especially Colo and Williamson. no, you try to read that and cover all fronts, it's called defending. thats why you don't man mark all over the pitch but take up positions to mark the man and cover other outcomes. Seriously Madras, you're not making any sense. No matter how well you cover or take up positions, when our defenders play high, all Fulham needed to do was hit the ball into the wide gaping space behind the defence which is really not difficult for most premiership players. The only way you can play a high defence is either to have fast defenders or outnumber them in midfield and hustle them so that their midfield can't put the ball over the top. We did neither Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eliassenfredrik Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Got it badly wrong today. f*** knows what possessed him to start Shola. The alternatives were... Loven and possibly Obertan? S'pose we could have played Vuckic. Pardew did say he was going to give Shola an extended run in the team. http://i.imgur.com/0pVW7.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Think a lot of this could have been solved by dropping the defence and central midfielders a little deeper. Would have liked to have seen us keep the 4-3-3, put Best up top and replace Ameobi with Ferguson as he could then help out Santon since he looked to be struggling after giving away the penalty. The defence moved up because we were weaker in midfield and they tried to fill the gap. my reading was the defence moved up a tad because johnson came on and dropped a bit deeper, no doubt many on here want us to stand 30yds out and wait for them to come at us. And you want the defence to move up and to be caught with ball over the top over and over again....brilliantly Pardewisque. Basic rule of playing a high line, you need quick defenders who can chase the ball over the top. We should never play a high line coz none of our defenders are fast enough for this, especially Colo and Williamson. no, you try to read that and cover all fronts, it's called defending. thats why you don't man mark all over the pitch but take up positions to mark the man and cover other outcomes. Seriously Madras, you're not making any sense. No matter how well you cover or take up positions, when our defenders play high, all Fulham needed to do was hit the ball into the wide gaping space behind the defence which is really not difficult for most premiership players. The only way you can play a high defence is either to have fast defenders or outnumber them in midfield and hustle them so that their midfield can't put the ball over the top. We did neither i'm not saying we played a high line (something thats been all the rage on here since waddle went on and on about away at citeh the other year), we played where you'd expect given their dropping off when johnson came on, it wasn't a tactic just basic what most teams do in that situation, i'd also say if we hadn't been chasing the game those gaps wouldn't have been there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GM Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Well fuck, now we have to win at least the next couple of games to make up for this. Blackburn and Vila are very beatable. So was Fulham. Of those two fixtures, I'm more anxious about Blackburn. They've already beaten us once this season and they're on a mission. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpal78 Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Think a lot of this could have been solved by dropping the defence and central midfielders a little deeper. Would have liked to have seen us keep the 4-3-3, put Best up top and replace Ameobi with Ferguson as he could then help out Santon since he looked to be struggling after giving away the penalty. The defence moved up because we were weaker in midfield and they tried to fill the gap. my reading was the defence moved up a tad because johnson came on and dropped a bit deeper, no doubt many on here want us to stand 30yds out and wait for them to come at us. And you want the defence to move up and to be caught with ball over the top over and over again....brilliantly Pardewisque. Basic rule of playing a high line, you need quick defenders who can chase the ball over the top. We should never play a high line coz none of our defenders are fast enough for this, especially Colo and Williamson. no, you try to read that and cover all fronts, it's called defending. thats why you don't man mark all over the pitch but take up positions to mark the man and cover other outcomes. Seriously Madras, you're not making any sense. No matter how well you cover or take up positions, when our defenders play high, all Fulham needed to do was hit the ball into the wide gaping space behind the defence which is really not difficult for most premiership players. The only way you can play a high defence is either to have fast defenders or outnumber them in midfield and hustle them so that their midfield can't put the ball over the top. We did neither i'm not saying we played a high line (something thats been all the rage on here since waddle went on and on about away at citeh the other year), we played where you'd expect given their dropping off when johnson came on, it wasn't a tactic just basic what most teams do in that situation, i'd also say if we hadn't been chasing the game those gaps wouldn't have been there. Ok I have no idea whether we deliberately played a high line because that was our tactics or whether we naturally played high to follow Johnson who was playing deeper as you claimed. Whatever the reason, we are not equipped to play a high line and should have our defenders sit deeper/stay back. I appreciate the point that this will mean that Johnson will likely get the ball but given that his skills are limited and that he will still have to beat our defenders who will be in front of him, it is far less damaging then having one of Dempsey, Zamora and Johnson only having Krul to beat once they get the ball over the top. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeyt Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Do the players really deserve to go to Tenerife after this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
littlelunchbox Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Think a lot of this could have been solved by dropping the defence and central midfielders a little deeper. Would have liked to have seen us keep the 4-3-3, put Best up top and replace Ameobi with Ferguson as he could then help out Santon since he looked to be struggling after giving away the penalty. The defence moved up because we were weaker in midfield and they tried to fill the gap. my reading was the defence moved up a tad because johnson came on and dropped a bit deeper, no doubt many on here want us to stand 30yds out and wait for them to come at us. And you want the defence to move up and to be caught with ball over the top over and over again....brilliantly Pardewisque. Basic rule of playing a high line, you need quick defenders who can chase the ball over the top. We should never play a high line coz none of our defenders are fast enough for this, especially Colo and Williamson. no, you try to read that and cover all fronts, it's called defending. thats why you don't man mark all over the pitch but take up positions to mark the man and cover other outcomes. Seriously Madras, you're not making any sense. No matter how well you cover or take up positions, when our defenders play high, all Fulham needed to do was hit the ball into the wide gaping space behind the defence which is really not difficult for most premiership players. The only way you can play a high defence is either to have fast defenders or outnumber them in midfield and hustle them so that their midfield can't put the ball over the top. We did neither i'm not saying we played a high line (something thats been all the rage on here since waddle went on and on about away at citeh the other year), we played where you'd expect given their dropping off when johnson came on, it wasn't a tactic just basic what most teams do in that situation, i'd also say if we hadn't been chasing the game those gaps wouldn't have been there. Ok I have no idea whether we deliberately played a high line because that was our tactics or whether we naturally played high to follow Johnson who was playing deeper as you claimed. Whatever the reason, we are not equipped to play a high line and should have our defenders sit deeper/stay back. I appreciate the point that this will mean that Johnson will likely get the ball but given that his skills are limited and that he will still have to beat our defenders who will be in front of him, it is far less damaging then having one of Dempsey, Zamora and Johnson only having Krul to beat once they get the ball over the top. we played the highline all first half, and it worked because they only had zamora upfront on his own, second half we kept it high, johnson was on already and tore us a new one Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beren Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Any post-match comments from Pardew yet? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eliassenfredrik Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Any post-match comments from Pardew yet? No. He grabbed Shola and made a run for it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bimpy474 Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Any post-match comments from Pardew yet? If he doesn't say sorry i'm going to punch his face on my TV. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David28 Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Any post-match comments from Pardew yet? http://www.skysports.com/video/inline/0,,16426_7446902,00.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bimpy474 Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Any post-match comments from Pardew yet? http://www.skysports.com/video/inline/0,,16426_7446902,00.html Natalie Sawyer soccerette on that page too Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
garth Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Fucked it up Alan, shouldn't have played Shola, simple. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beren Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 "goals that we haven't conceded all year" ~ hope he doesn't really believe that, and that he has a look back at them (and the WBA game) and realises it's not just 'one of those things'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Logic Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 "goals that we haven't conceded all year" ~ hope he doesn't really believe that, and that he has a look back at them (and the WBA game) and realises it's not just 'one of those things'. Like when he claimed we'd controlled the game at Anfield. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 In the absence of a genuine quality striker, I'd like to see us try Best up front and an extra body in midfield, especially away from home. I don't see what we get from having Shola up there as he's not going to get into goal scoring positions - a bit of a waste of a shirt for me. Pardew needs to take his blinkers off re playing two big men, especially when they aren't goalscorers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiresias Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 In the absence of a genuine quality striker, I'd like to see us try Best up front and an extra body in midfield, especially away from home. I don't see what we get from having Shola up there as he's not going to get into goal scoring positions - a bit of a waste of a shirt for me. Pardew needs to take his blinkers off re playing two big men, especially when they aren't goalscorers. This. Can understand wanting to bully a weak defence with 2 big men, but it should't be a default as it limits us in the midfield. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Shola couldn't bully a 6-year-old girl. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Logic Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Best would have been far more effective in Shola's spot imo. And with hindsight, regarding that, Lovens or Ferguson could have offered more wide left. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Shola couldn't bully a 6-year-old girl. Not true. http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/4/shoolaaaa.gif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
garth Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Shola couldn't bully a 6-year-old girl. Not true. http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/4/shoolaaaa.gif :lol: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interpolic Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts